News Elsewhere

Agencies see big hit to taxpayers

PHOENIX - Arizona taxpayers will have to shell out tens of millions of dollars - if not more - if voters approve a measure designed to block services to people in the country illegally, according to the directors of various state agencies. Reports sought by Gov. Janet Napolitano, obtained by Capitol Media Services under the state's public-records law, show that department heads believe they then would be responsible for checking the immigration status of everyone who comes looking for services. That will mean more time - and more staff workers - for verification, they told Napolitano. The Democratic governor opposes Proposition 200 - a fact that led supporters of the ballot measure to accuse her administration of exaggerating the implications. Among the costs projected by state government leaders: Steve Owens, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, figured it would cost his agency $10.5 million a year just to verify the citizenship of those who bring their vehicles into emission inspection stations. Dennis Garrett, who runs the Department of Public Safety, said he will need close to an extra $8 million because his officers now will be forced to determine the legal status of people stopped on highways and file reports with federal authorities. That figure, he said, does not include another $3 million to train DPS officers on federal immigration laws and citizenship verification procedures. Ken Travous, director of Arizona State Parks, said his employees would have to turn away anyone who did not have proper federal identification to prove legal residency. He said that means lower admission revenues. And the Department of Health Services concluded that if it cannot provide immunizations to those who cannot prove citizenship, that will have untold effects as disease spreads among all Arizona residents. The implications also include small things like the Governor's Office of Highway Safety saying that if Proposition 200 passes, the agency must ensure that those who have entered the country illegally do not get free car seats or bicycle helmets for children. Agency director Richard Fimbres could not put a price tag on those efforts. The reports drew an angry reaction from state Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley, a congressional candidate who supports Proposition 200. He accused Napolitano of using scare tactics and an incorrect interpretation of the law to convince voters to oppose the measure. The part of Proposition 200 at issue would require public employees to check the legal immigration status of applicants for "public benefits." The only exception would be for federally mandated programs such as public education and emergency health care. It also would mandate that public workers must file a written report to federal authorities if an applicant turns out to not be here legally. Violators could face up to four months in jail. Graf pointed out the provision of Proposition 200 in question is inserted into the state's Welfare Code. Graf said that limits its effects to things such as welfare benefits and state-provided health care. "It's an absolute stretch, in my estimation, to think that Game and Fish is going to have to check the citizenship status of anyone applying for a hunting license," Graf said. "The governor is grasping at straws to try to make it a platform to defeat the initiative on." Gubernatorial press aide Jeanine L'Ecuyer denied a political agenda. "We're not trying to stack the deck," she said. L'Ecuyer noted that several Napolitano appointees concluded passage of the measure would have little impact on what they do. But the memo sent to department heads, crafted by Diane Saunders, Napolitano's director of Cabinet affairs and special projects, noted the initiative contains no specific definitions. "Consequently, you should construe the term 'public benefit' in its broadest sense as it pertains to your agency," she wrote. Several agency directors said that, at minimum, they would have to train employees to figure out who is breaking the law so that their workers do not wind up facing criminal charges. L'Ecuyer said the wording of the proposition is not as clear as its supporters claim. She said Proposition 200 allows any Arizona resident to sue the government for perceived violations of the initiative's provisions. What that also means, L'Ecuyer said, is that taxpayers will have to spend money to defend those lawsuits. The proposition has been certified for Arizona's Nov. 2 general election ballot but a union has filed suit to block it. A judge will hear arguments next week.